Burqa is integral to Muslim identity

I don’t know whether Nicolas Sarkozy — super-model Carla Bruni’s arm candy and also France’s president — knows how much he insulted the burqa. I only hope he knows by now he’s wrong on both counts.

What prompted the statement is important. French secularism envisages a strict separation between religion and state. So France will allow any religious identity to flourish on the streets. Fair enough. To that end, the French stopped Sikh students from wearing turbans. So lawmakers are, understandably, wanting to get rid of the burqa as well. In India, we understand secularism to mean all religions are equal and everyone pretty much gets to do their own thing, especially in terms of sporting clothes. That’s my first doubt cleared because for me secularism means more the merrier, not ensuring assembly-line photocopies.

First part of Sarkozy’s statement. The burqa is not a symbol of religion. The burqa, in fact, is integral to the Muslim identity as laypersons know it. But do the scriptures, the Koran, in particular say that women must wear burqa? I spoke to a couple of friends and Sarkozy’s so wrong. The Prophet certainly advised Muslim women to protect their dignity. That a woman’s dignity lies in her own hands and it is best that she have a chador when stepping out of the house.

So Sarkozy’s wrong. It is a religious identity. But the bigger point is if it were not religious as the French Prez says, how does it interfere with French secular values? Will France not allow non-religious identity even?

Conditioning or choice, many Muslim women bond with their burqa. It’s as much a style statement as a proud marker of identity. It gives them ‘security’, they say in a world that has become overtly sexualised. It’s their choice to wear their identity on rather long sleeves, but that’s none of my business.

Second part. The burqa is subservient. Being inside a burqa can be hot as hell, but I don’t see even the so-called empowered modern Muslim woman not having some sort of bonding with burqas. If earlier generations of educated Muslims rejected such markers of identity, nowadays I see more and more opting to wear it. In a recent meeting in Jamia Millia university, only one of the 20-odd girls wore a burqa, but every young woman had her head covered, even those in jeans and kurtis. None of them fiddled with their scarves, or dupattas, they were comfortable. It was a natural feminine way to be in a rude city.

For Muslim women, it is not a symbol of subservience. The rest of the world bristles at any religious diktat. But I find Muslim women themselves quite okay with a sort of head-cover. And those who don’t bother with it are not labelled ‘parkati’ either, are they? At least in India, women in the average Indian home face no force in adopting a burqa. But the world would like to apply force, in the form of a ban, to wrench women away from the burqa. If we apply force, so will the mullahs. As has been pointed out, the burqa is older than the Taliban.

Chador is as much a part of a woman’s Muslim identity as the beard for men is and very important for the average Muslim. Sarkozy has to only visit any Muslim social networking and matrimonial site to realise that.

That said, Sarkozy is not alone in profiling the burqa. The West does somehow see the burqa as oppressive. The burqa has been targeted even at an Obama campaign rally in Detroit last year where two burqa-wearing women weren’t allowed to sit behind Obama’s podium. Of course, apologies and all followed, but not before the women were denied their right to seats.

As for Sarkozy, before he opens his mouth again on the topic, he should get his facts cleared. Maybe get Carla to vacuum the cobwebs out from between his ears. If, as it is claimed, he is subservient to Bruninomics, he should know that her politics will probably be fine with a burqa.